It looks like al in this case is a mistake. Following the rule of the personal a, if abogado was the direct object in the sentence, then al would be correct. This isn't the case and the use of al in this sentence is incorrect.

Hmm, in spite of what poli said, it seems to me that in the phrase "...que al abodado", native speakers of Spanish could perceive abogado as an additional direct object of colocaron in conjunction with me. It might be functioning as a shorthand way to say something like "...al que le colocaron al abogado". (I'm looking forward to reading what our most-knowledgeable companions have to say about this!)

It appears that the author of the sentence and the lawyer seated earlier were both colocaron en la misma mesa, so both would be objects. And if the object is a person, the "personal 'a'" is pressed into service.

I suppose it's local to Spain, but everyone else understands it. You can colocar things (colocar el cuadro en la pared) but when people is involved it's somehow figurative (me colocaron de camarero en el hotel -I was given that job and not placed like a flowerpot-; me colocó en aprietos con sus mentiras).

Just by taking a look to the uses of its opposite, descolocar: No funciona porque el conector está descolocado -in the wrong slot, or loose- ; su reacción me descolocó -it baffled me-)